decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
My only concern: Software IS Abstract | 179 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
My only concern: Software IS Abstract
Authored by: PolR on Saturday, March 16 2013 @ 01:14 PM EDT
Explaining why software is abstract is easy. Explaining why a patent claim
involving software is abstract is hard.

The problem is not the abstractness of software. The problem is the abstractness
of patent claims. Lawyers write their claims using words that let them argue
they are patenting hardware "configured" to run the software and not
the software itself. Then they say the hardware is not abstract and it is
patentable.

When we say software is abstract, the lawyers answer "yes but the claim is
not patenting this abstract software."

Notice how the lawyers' answer is not "software is concrete." They
don't say"you are wrong to say it is abstract." The answer is
"the claim is patenting hardware and this is not software."

This is the real issue. Arguing that software is abstract doesn't help unless we
can counter this answer.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )